I've noticed a lot of interesting subversions of what used to be rock cannon in this update. I thought about posting it in the new update thread, but I think there are some worthy talking points here about the forward movement of music history.

- Kanye West is now the #2 African American artist of all-time, outranking Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Sly and The Family Stone, Otis Redding and numerous other hall of fame acts.- Kanye also outranks Nirvana now, making him the second most acclaimed act of the last quarter century behind Radiohead.- Finally Kanye is the undisputed king of hip hop, outranking old stalwarts like Public Enemy and Beastie Boys who carried the torch for years.- Influences are hard to concretely pindown, but Arcade Fire now outranks nearly all of their 80s post-punk/ new romantic/ new wave influences. David Bowie, U2, and Talking Heads are all that's above them. New Order, The Cure, Roxy Music, Joy Division, all below them.- Funeral now outranks Led Zeppelin IV, which was one of the first classic albums I owned. Kind of mind-blowing seeing that happen from an act I saw in front of 500 people in 2004.- Blur, who I always considered "The 90s version of The Kinks" outranks The Kinks themselves as of this update.- The #2 and 3 female artists are PJ Harvey and Bjork, upsetting the old music canon of Aretha Franklin, Joni Mitchell, Patti Smith etc.- Wilco is one good update away from overtaking Johnny Cash and The Band. An insane milestone for a band with large chunks of their career steeped in country and folk rock traditions. - Many classic rock cannon acts like Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, Grateful Dead and Randy Newman, who once were once entrenched in canon are now tumbling out of the top 100 and into the 150s.

I started becoming interested in rock canon and lists about 15 years ago, and it's just mind-blowing how consensus continues to evolve, and change, and watching new artists overtake artists you always thought would be on top. It feels like we're in the middle of what's only perhaps the second upsetting of the critical norm in history, the first coming around the time of Nirvana, when a lot of opinions changed about top artists/ albums.

So is this just evolution? Are the classics too antiquated to appeal to a newer generation? Is it the fact that bands today never break up, and are having longer and longer runs, where as bands/artists from past eras would break up after their commercial peak ended? Would love any discussion on this.

I think it's as simple as new work keeps being created; of course Arcade Fire is going to end up steadily climbing the ranking as they continue to produce top-acclaimed albums. All those other artists you're discussing also probably started with crowds of 500 people before blowing up with a sustained legacy. This is going to happen with any medium over time; being in the top 1000 albums at the end of the 70s doesn't mean much now when there's been another 40 years of music to compete with. It's not that Arcade Fire or Blur are suddenly being reconsidered as better bands; they simply keep producing more work. Artists who no longer make work have essentially achieved their ceiling barring a reevaluation of their work; current artists simply have to make another important work to be considered more noteworthy and move up, while their already released work is likely steadily increasing as they take their place among the rock canon.

And it has nothing to do with bands not breaking up these days; many of the older artists you're talking about were much more prolific, even if over a shorter period of time. Volume of acclaimed work is what matters, and current artists are able to increase that volume.

Well, I'd point out that the artist rankings on the main page are the results of a formula, and are perhaps different than when the question is point-blank put to the forum, or put to Rolling Stone or whichever music site or magazine, "Who are the best ever?"

Still, it's not surprising that some newer musicians would gain equal or greater prominence. Newer generations have their own heroes who speak to them more (flash in the pan acts aside). Radiohead, despite doing badly with the R&R HOF crowd, are like the Beatles for the Pitchfork crowd. I have no idea who's big in high school these days, but even Radiohead might be slightly old hat to them.

So, the canon can potentially keep changing, and the musicians of old might get a certain respect without dominating the conversation like they used to.

The addition of new stuff is a factor, but I think it's also just the natural way of things that old works remain relevant, don't, or get reevaluated by future generations after being forgotten. For an obvious example, look at which songs were on the charts in the past and see how many are still talked about today. And the most acclaimed album today is Pet Sounds, which was not originally greeted with the fervor you would expect given its current standing. I suspect The Beach Boys in general would be a good example of this actually, and I think you will continue to see their forgotten work reevaluated while what once saw popular success might eventually fall out of favor.

Live in Phoenix wrote:Well, I'd point out that the artist rankings on the main page are the results of a formula, and are perhaps different than when the question is point-blank put to the forum, or put to Rolling Stone or whichever music site or magazine, "Who are the best ever?"

Still, it's not surprising that some newer musicians would gain equal or greater prominence. Newer generations have their own heroes who speak to them more (flash in the pan acts aside). Radiohead, despite doing badly with the R&R HOF crowd, are like the Beatles for the Pitchfork crowd. I have no idea who's big in high school these days, but even Radiohead might be slightly old hat to them.

So, the canon can potentially keep changing, and the musicians of old might get a certain respect without dominating the conversation like they used to.

There-in lies an interesting problem. PJ Harvey could release 6 more classic albums, and there would still be a perception among a certain group of rock historians, that Patti Smith is a better/ more important solo artist.

It makes you wonder if many of the highly acclaimed acts from this century (say, artists in the top 100) are actually "legends", or are they just statistically acclaimed bands? For example, Wilco is in no way more legendary than Simon & Garfunkel, and LCD Soundsystem is nowhere near as important as Elton John. Obviously this is all very esoteric, but it's an interesting thing to ponder.

Well, for what it's worth, Simon and Garfunkel and Wilco placed at #23 and #71 in our top artists poll last year, keeping about the same distance from each other as the previous version of the poll. And LCD Soundsystem and Elton John placed at #39 and #41, switching leads from the earlier poll.

Yes, acclaim evolves and differs over time (thankfully). Then again, I'm quite surprised that The Beatles have always so easily reigned the pantheon of pop music and still do, with so little competition, it seems.

I could be biased but I think the margin between The Beatles and the rest is a bit confounding, to me at least.Why hasn't that ever changed really?

Jonathon wrote:it's just mind-blowing how consensus continues to evolve, and change

I think this is incorrect. What changes are aesthetic values and the demography of music criticism. New consensus isn't really achieved. In fact, true consensus is impossible. It's a mistake, in my opinion, to believe that cross-generational music criticism is legitimate. A 35 year old music critic shouldn't be regarded when ranking Beatles or Rolling Stones albums, and a music critic approaching the age of retirement shouldn't be heeded when offering considered opinions on the works of Radiohead or Arcade Fire.

Even decade lists based exclusively on the input of contemporaneous criticism will only approximate the realities and tastes of a musical decade. Ask 100 randomized individuals of age 65 how closely they followed The Velvet Underground. The majority will reply "Not at all." So how meaningful can it be to rank their debut album at #3 for the 1960s? Its impact was, and still is, esoteric.

There are obviously albums in each decade (list) that have a similar historical profile. Why should someone be swayed into believing that something they missed, or maybe even rejected, is 'important' or more important than what they already know and identify with? If you like the esoteric stuff and embrace it, you should still be able to appreciate that the common reaction is to reject eccentricity. Past aesthetic judgement serving as context for subsequent experience naturally predicts that less favorable judgements will be highly probable. Aesthetics change. Appraisal changes. Context emerges. It's an easy formula.

All-time lists, regardless of they how they are derived, are a fool's folly. Are they fun? Sure. Are they relevant? Not so much.

Gillingham wrote:Then again, I'm quite surprised that The Beatles have always so easily reigned the pantheon of pop music and still do, with so little competition, it seems.

I could be biased but I think the margin between The Beatles and the rest is a bit confounding, to me at least.Why hasn't that ever changed really?

This has been something of a returning subject for me. I like most of The Beatles' stuff, but the way they have become something of an end-all of complete popular music history borders on the ridiculous. The way everything they have needs to be explained as brilliant borders on the neurotic. I'm mostly bothered by the way they are sometimes presented as the guys who invented everything musical. In reality they weren't innovators at all, but guys who were very good at making use of other musicians' innovations. That is not a minor talent at all, but The Beatle myth requires them to be the center of the universe, with all others artists surrounding them like minor moons.

It's not an entirely uncontested position they have though. Pierro Scaruffi is perhaps most famous for challenging the importance of The Beatles.

Also, it fits a larger problem that is very specific for popular music: that music fans and critics feel a weird need to posit their favorite artists as major musical inventors, regardless if they are or not. So The Beatles have invented everything. Micheal Jackson invented everything too (regardless of the fact that he depended heavily on collaborators). Bob Marley invented reggae, despite it being a regional tradition for quite some time. And so on, and so on. I notice this far less in literature and movie criticism, were works can be more easily rated highly without them having changed the history of things. Scaruffi posits this as a lack of knowledge of music history in music critics (in comparison to other art forms). Perhaps. It might also be that popular music has always been seen as a young people's game, something that should be a break of what the parents did. Therefore it becomes more of a need to posit new work by major artists as a complete sea change. Who knows?

I'm someone with something of an interest in the development in arts, like music. The last few years I've paid more attention to popular music and really, the history writing there is a complete mess and very weird. I guess that's why it bothers me somewhat. But perhaps I'm getting of topic a bit.

Gillingham wrote:Then again, I'm quite surprised that The Beatles have always so easily reigned the pantheon of pop music and still do, with so little competition, it seems.

I could be biased but I think the margin between The Beatles and the rest is a bit confounding, to me at least.Why hasn't that ever changed really?

This has been something of a returning subject for me. I like most of The Beatles' stuff, but the way they have become something of an end-all of complete popular music history borders on the ridiculous. The way everything they have needs to be explained as brilliant borders on the neurotic. I'm mostly bothered by the way they are sometimes presented as the guys who invented everything musical. In reality they weren't innovators at all, but guys who were very good at making use of other musicians' innovations. That is not a minor talent at all, but The Beatle myth requires them to be the center of the universe, with all others artists surrounding them like minor moons.

It's not an entirely uncontested position they have though. Pierro Scaruffi is perhaps most famous for challenging the importance of The Beatles.

Also, it fits a larger problem that is very specific for popular music: that music fans and critics feel a weird need to posit their favorite artists as major musical inventors, regardless if they are or not. So The Beatles have invented everything. Micheal Jackson invented everything too (regardless of the fact that he depended heavily on collaborators). Bob Marley invented reggae, despite it being a regional tradition for quite some time. And so on, and so on. I notice this far less in literature and movie criticism, were works can be more easily rated highly without them having changed the history of things. Scaruffi posits this as a lack of knowledge of music history in music critics (in comparison to other art forms). Perhaps. It might also be that popular music has always been seen as a young people's game, something that should be a break of what the parents did. Therefore it becomes more of a need to posit new work by major artists as a complete sea change. Who knows?

I'm someone with something of an interest in the development in arts, like music. The last few years I've paid more attention to popular music and really, the history writing there is a complete mess and very weird. I guess that's why it bothers me somewhat. But perhaps I'm getting of topic a bit.

I think The Beatles deserve the praise they get, and I think they deserve to dominate the discussion at least as much as they do. Who is a legitimate competitor to The Beatles? I do agree that invention tends to be exaggerated and overvalued in music criticism, although I do think they were extremely innovative, even if they borrowed plenty of ideas from their predecessors. But beyond that, look at their body of work. They were prolific, churning out albums every 6 months, and still maintaining an unprecedented level of quality. In terms of quality alone, I think their discography is twice as strong as any other artist, and they did it all in an 8-year period. With songs and albums, they had an extraordinarily high peak and tremendous depth.

Then take a look at their impact as a cultural phenomenon. They were the first to sell out stadiums, and people went CRAZY for them - it's fascinating to watch the footage of their concerts. There's nothing like it. Girls were screaming their heads off for hours on end, and the overall hysteria made it dangerous for them to keep touring.

They had 27 #1 hits. They've connected deeply with the masses and the critics in a way that will be very difficult for anyone to match. I hope someday we have another phenomenon like them, but it's hard for me to imagine. And there is no chance of an existing artist being revisited to the point where they earn a place in the same echelon.

I prefer to discuss a performer's willingness to expand their palate and engage different musical contexts rather than innovation. Most music has some derivative basis and so the argument about what is truly innovative tends to be very subjective - aligned with one's tastes and preferences rather than some objectively substantiated innovative standard. Have any of the our top artists obtained patent protection for musical methods?

Gillingham wrote:Then again, I'm quite surprised that The Beatles have always so easily reigned the pantheon of pop music and still do, with so little competition, it seems.

I could be biased but I think the margin between The Beatles and the rest is a bit confounding, to me at least.Why hasn't that ever changed really?

This has been something of a returning subject for me. I like most of The Beatles' stuff, but the way they have become something of an end-all of complete popular music history borders on the ridiculous. The way everything they have needs to be explained as brilliant borders on the neurotic. I'm mostly bothered by the way they are sometimes presented as the guys who invented everything musical. In reality they weren't innovators at all, but guys who were very good at making use of other musicians' innovations. That is not a minor talent at all, but The Beatle myth requires them to be the center of the universe, with all others artists surrounding them like minor moons.

It's not an entirely uncontested position they have though. Pierro Scaruffi is perhaps most famous for challenging the importance of The Beatles.

Also, it fits a larger problem that is very specific for popular music: that music fans and critics feel a weird need to posit their favorite artists as major musical inventors, regardless if they are or not. So The Beatles have invented everything. Micheal Jackson invented everything too (regardless of the fact that he depended heavily on collaborators). Bob Marley invented reggae, despite it being a regional tradition for quite some time. And so on, and so on. I notice this far less in literature and movie criticism, were works can be more easily rated highly without them having changed the history of things. Scaruffi posits this as a lack of knowledge of music history in music critics (in comparison to other art forms). Perhaps. It might also be that popular music has always been seen as a young people's game, something that should be a break of what the parents did. Therefore it becomes more of a need to posit new work by major artists as a complete sea change. Who knows?

I'm someone with something of an interest in the development in arts, like music. The last few years I've paid more attention to popular music and really, the history writing there is a complete mess and very weird. I guess that's why it bothers me somewhat. But perhaps I'm getting of topic a bit.

I think The Beatles deserve the praise they get, and I think they deserve to dominate the discussion at least as much as they do. Who is a legitimate competitor to The Beatles? I do agree that invention tends to be exaggerated and overvalued in music criticism, although I do think they were extremely innovative, even if they borrowed plenty of ideas from their predecessors. But beyond that, look at their body of work. They were prolific, churning out albums every 6 months, and still maintaining an unprecedented level of quality. In terms of quality alone, I think their discography is twice as strong as any other artist, and they did it all in an 8-year period. With songs and albums, they had an extraordinarily high peak and tremendous depth.

Then take a look at their impact as a cultural phenomenon. They were the first to sell out stadiums, and people went CRAZY for them - it's fascinating to watch the footage of their concerts. There's nothing like it. Girls were screaming their heads off for hours on end, and the overall hysteria made it dangerous for them to keep touring.

They had 27 #1 hits. They've connected deeply with the masses and the critics in a way that will be very difficult for anyone to match. I hope someday we have another phenomenon like them, but it's hard for me to imagine. And there is no chance of an existing artist being revisited to the point where they earn a place in the same echelon.

I would be curious to hear an argument for another artist, though.

The reason The Beatles are #1 with a bullet is because there is no other argument.

- On a populist level, only Elvis comes close, but lacks forays into challenging music to be a serious #1 contender.- Bob Dylan is a great artistic force, but his music tends to be a more traditional mix of folk, rock n roll, blues, country, and a pinch of soul. - The Rolling Stones are as good at making crunchy, riff driven rock singles as The Beatles are at anything, and they were a better pure rock n roll band. That said, they succeeded mostly in - On an artistic level, you could argue The Velvet Underground was more innovative, but they had a short run and barely sold any records. They also were far less interesting by their final record.Many artists also had achievements that The Beatles borrowed heavily from, but none of them have the body of work to serve as a replacement Beatles. The Beach Boys can't be the #1 artists of all-time on the back of Pet Sounds, for example.

After 1970, you can't really argue a Beatles replacement. Too much of what happened was either because of them or reacting to them. David Bowie's 1970s album run shares similarities with The Beatles run from 1965-1970, where each album is a new step in the evolution of the artist, but Bowie was neither as commercially successful, nor as consistent, and some of his turns fell short.

The Beatles are still probably only an A-minus choice for the greatest act of all-time. They borrowed a lot from The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, the San Francisco Psychedelic scene, etc. A perfect #1 choice would've been the band responsible for those innovations. Still, they managed to stay on the cutting edge of popular music for their whole career, make at least 5 of the best albums of all-time, and contribute at least 40-50 songs that are legitimate cultural touche stones.

Thanks for all the thoughtful reactions on my comment above. I do want to clear up something though: my problem with The Beatles is not so much that they are the number one or that I have a better candidate. My problem is more that the status of The Beatles is a bit bigger than they, or anyone for that matter, can hold. I guess somebody has to be number one and there are certainly arguments for it being The Beatles. But does that mean that they have to be the end-all of anything music? Is it really necessary to lazily credit them for inventing a lot of stuff they didn't? Does everything they have done to be seen as a masterstroke? The Beatles tend to attract some kind of weird uncritical thinking, as if they need to be lifted above the possibilities of the human. I'm not sure I see the point in that.

andyd1010 wrote:Then take a look at their impact as a cultural phenomenon. They were the first to sell out stadiums, and people went CRAZY for them - it's fascinating to watch the footage of their concerts. There's nothing like it. Girls were screaming their heads off for hours on end, and the overall hysteria made it dangerous for them to keep touring.

Yes, but with this they have more in common with One Direction, Justin Bieber, Duran Duran and other boy bands than with most acclaimed acts. Sales and mass hysteria do not necessarily go hand in hand with acclaim. It shouldn't be hold against them either, but it can be a distraction. It has very little to do with music anyway, more with marketing.

The mass hysteria and whatnot is definitely a factor in their legendary status, but I think it’s more the fact that they were such huge superstars while 1) crafting better hooks than anyone else, short of maybe Motown, 2) constantly adjusting their sound in a logical, progressive way, and 3) eventually giving up being a successful touring act to become sonically groundbreaking experimenters who 4) still made great music and 5) never stopped making hits out of these seemingly inscrutable songs.

Music is a world within itself, with a language we all understand - Sir Duke (1976)

Sorry, it was teed right up for me. And I agree with Live in Phoenix, it’s catchy... I agree with you as well that even The Beatles were not without their duds.

No worries! I guess it does say a lot that the Beatles, more so than the likes of Dylan, Presley, the Stones, etc. have at least some defenders for pretty much all of their songs. I’ve even seen a few defenders for songs like Revolution 9.

Music is a world within itself, with a language we all understand - Sir Duke (1976)

The Beatles, in addition to being massively popular (which, as we already noted, isn't really something that should work for or against them), also did have a lot of studio innovations. Sure, was some of it a product of their time (obviously no group around today would be considered ingenious for the stuff they did), and some of it was stuff others had already done, whether that is Stockhausen or Brian Wilson. That being said, the Beatles brought Stockhausen's styles into popular music. They brought elements of Indian Classical music into Western popular music. They also popularized (and quite possibly invented) some interesting chord progressions. And on top of all of that, they never really made a bad album and consistently wrote incredibly catchy music. It's hard to find another artist with that resume.

Rob wrote:But does that mean that they have to be the end-all of anything music? Is it really necessary to lazily credit them for inventing a lot of stuff they didn't? Does everything they have done to be seen as a masterstroke? The Beatles tend to attract some kind of weird uncritical thinking, as if they need to be lifted above the possibilities of the human. I'm not sure I see the point in that.

I think you are pretty safe from that in this forum. I can understand that other people say these kinds of things, but don't let it get you down.